Indeed, I upvoted my own comment to make it visible as the top comment. It's cheeky and I don't do it often (and when I do it, I usually spend only 1% voting power to make my comment above most of the spam-comments, but still allowing others to curate the comments).
On Steem, people are quite concerned to come with criticism or opposing views, and there is an abundance of complimenting comments (for quite some of them it's even obvious that the complimenter didn't even care to read the article). At one hand, it's nice that open conflicts, ad-hominems, flag-wars and bitter arguments are rather rare at this platform, at the other hand I do think there is too few discussion going on. It may lead to echo-chamber effects and circle-jerking, where most people only bother reading things they agree on and avoid reading and commenting on things they disagree on. I find it very healthy when the most visible comment is a constructive criticism rather than the ordinary dull "great job!", "nice article!", etc.
In this case I felt that the spam was inappropriate and hence some kind of reaction was appropriate - like leaving a comment at the top of the article linked to.
Seeing the replies it seems like I'm quite alone on the opinion that this is "inappropriate spam". Either that, or out of all the people thinking it's "inappropriate spam", I was the only one actually bothering to follow it up.
Yes, inactive voters is most likely a problem, but I don't see the "wallet spam comments" making people much aware of it.
Great points! I like this spam as I only look at 10% or less and the little money sent adds up! Imagine if they used a bot to send to all 1 million accounts, would cost 1,000 sbd or my decimal off?
Indeed, I upvoted my own comment to make it visible as the top comment. It's cheeky and I don't do it often (and when I do it, I usually spend only 1% voting power to make my comment above most of the spam-comments, but still allowing others to curate the comments).
On Steem, people are quite concerned to come with criticism or opposing views, and there is an abundance of complimenting comments (for quite some of them it's even obvious that the complimenter didn't even care to read the article). At one hand, it's nice that open conflicts, ad-hominems, flag-wars and bitter arguments are rather rare at this platform, at the other hand I do think there is too few discussion going on. It may lead to echo-chamber effects and circle-jerking, where most people only bother reading things they agree on and avoid reading and commenting on things they disagree on. I find it very healthy when the most visible comment is a constructive criticism rather than the ordinary dull "great job!", "nice article!", etc.
In this case I felt that the spam was inappropriate and hence some kind of reaction was appropriate - like leaving a comment at the top of the article linked to.
Seeing the replies it seems like I'm quite alone on the opinion that this is "inappropriate spam". Either that, or out of all the people thinking it's "inappropriate spam", I was the only one actually bothering to follow it up.
Yes, inactive voters is most likely a problem, but I don't see the "wallet spam comments" making people much aware of it.
Great points! I like this spam as I only look at 10% or less and the little money sent adds up! Imagine if they used a bot to send to all 1 million accounts, would cost 1,000 sbd or my decimal off?